Talk:Big Hill

2005 top post

There is no CP 7527, suggest check image for correct number. Also, what is the name on the sign? This should be in the caption to enable locating the point (one mile before) where the picture was taken.

RL, the sign says "Cathedral". As for the loco number, this is what was reported to me by the photographer who took the cab ride. I'll see what he says. Fawcett5 23:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if this picture might be better suited for the Field Hill article since the photo was taken post-Spiral Tunnels. Al guy 03:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, since it is a newer photo (5727?) this might be a better choice. The real Big Hill was actually just the old switchback over the top. The Field Hill is the tunnel route, yet it gets referred to as "The Big Hill". Old names die hard, especially on the RR! R.L.Kennedy 17:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved this post from top of page

You are mixing two factors here. This was the most diffficult section of railway line to OPERATE due to its extreme grade, as well as snow etc. Superior was the most difficult section of railway to ENGINEER, to actually construct. As for citation, see all the References given for this article. R.L.Kennedy 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs disambig big-time

When I saw this I thought of the famous Big Hill on the Chilcotin Highway, where the descent to Bella Coola is; and there's lots of others worldwide.Skookum1 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorialising

The author of the "It cannot be said that the railway ever conquered the mountains, only that the railway copes with the challenge and the mountains tolerate the railway" sentence justifies its addition on the grounds that he/she is famous. This is specifically covered in WP:COS: a further, reliable source making this point is always required. Furthermore, the poetical personification style used doesn't seem encyclopedic and jars harshly with the factual tone of the rest of the piece. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No further objections: RV once more. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Math

This edit has engendered a discussion on my talk page, but it may benefit from input from other editors:

Didnt' know people from Wiltshire knew where Field BC is. Big Hill edits. The actual figures for the CPR railgrade is 1200 feet in 3.5 miles. I originally went off the mileage profile for distance but that does not account for the steep hill. I also read it in Turner, Lavalee, and on line. I changed it back to 3.5 and you changed it back to 10 miles my original wrong figure. Doing the math, the [bank] grade is 1200 feet in 3.5 to make it 4.4 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Even people from Wiltshire may hire a bike and cycle from Lake Louise up the trail converted from the narrow-gauge railtrack ("The Tramline Trail"), cross Lake Louise Drive and onto the closed-to-vehicles section of "The Great Divide Highway". This crosses the CPR track near to the summit and runs parallel for a while, passing some of the old Big Hill bridges. Sadly, to carry on to Field cyclists have to use the fast, new Highway. When cycling back to Lake Louise they become very aware of the distance and grade. All this is original research, of course, so I have used as a reference the 1:50,000 map I used for the journey. The figures are from that. The map was available on Amazon.com, so presumably you should be able to get it from Amazon.ca as well. For an instant check, you may like to use the "ruler" feature on Google Earth. The distance from Field to the summit is ten miles. Please check out the sources before changing it to 3.5 miles again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I went back and checked the figures and was SHOCKED, SHOCKED to see it is actually 1200 feet in 3.5 miles. Bloody steep in anybodys books and the wrong place to build a railway. I have never cycled that route tho did hear the CPR had a small train to bring the guests to the Hotel at banff. Anyrate, I will rent the bike at the top of the hill and cycle down, getting a ride back up. Too many bloody hills in this province.

That is shocking: on the back of a very small envelope it's 6.5% (E&OE). Are we talking about the same stretch of terrain? The article text has: "ascend 1,070 feet (330 m) in the space of 10 miles (16 km) from Field at 4,267 feet (1,301 m) climbing to the top of the Continental Divide at 5,340 feet (1,630 m) [emphasis added]. Is your source referring to only part of this? This could certainly be added, if so.

I'd like to transfer this discussion to the article talk page to get some other opinions: an overview of my sums would be welcome and there's still a possibility that I'm missing something obvious. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Views from other editors sought.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New ref, from book published by CPR, added. Seems definitive. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Operatic tone

Even after the introduction of modern locomotives with dynamic braking and continuous pneumatic brakes, accidents were not eliminated.

On a quick skim, the source abstract seems to say that a (probably) sleep-deprived engineer who wasn't properly trained in the conceptual model of that particular locomotive did something—against the grain of professional common sense—that the manuals should have explicitly disallowed, but didn't. This is the usual layer-cake of human error in these kinds of scenarios.

What it boils down to is that a 2.2% descending grade is still dangerous if you don't operate your fancy equipment properly.

— MaxEnt 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)